delete_time_entry

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The word 'permanently' discloses irreversibility, which is a key behavioral trait given no annotations. However, it does not mention other behavioral details such as permission requirements, side effects on related data (e.g., time entries linked to issues), or error states. With no annotations, the description bears full burden and is minimally sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no unnecessary words. The verb and action are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description omits return values (e.g., success indication, error messages) and does not address potential constraints like whether deletion is allowed if time entries are linked to issues. For a simple delete operation, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema (100% coverage) already defines the single parameter 'id' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the verb 'Deletes' and the resource 'time entry', with 'permanently' specifying irreversibility. It is distinct from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_issue, delete_project) by naming the specific resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., different deletion contexts, prerequisites like existence of entry, or constraints). The description solely states what it does, not when or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.